Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 65580 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 19:27:40 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 19:27:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 14119 invoked by uid 97); 22 Dec 2002 19:28:53 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14103 invoked by uid 97); 22 Dec 2002 19:28:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14091 invoked by uid 98); 22 Dec 2002 19:28:52 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:28:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [beanutils][digester] about time for a release? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: robert burrell donkin To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20021221120735.P39372-100000@icarus.apache.org> Message-Id: <7D3DBAE8-15E3-11D7-B31D-003065DC754C@blueyonder.co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Saturday, December 21, 2002, at 08:09 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > OK, I've finished my changes to these packages, and am satisfied that they > are ready for a release. The only outstanding Bugzilla report that is not > an enhancement request is 12997, and I just need to finish up a test case > that emulates the behavior of many existing Digester customers (and > illustrates why the proposed change would not be backwards compatible). > That's not something that needs to hold up releasing these two. good work :) i still can't run the unit tests for beanutils due to that java 1.3 problem deserializing primative type classes so i can't do much checking myself but if you've happy, i'm happy. there is one more matter that i think should be considered. we've had several requests to make MethodUtils.getMatchingAccessibleMethod(). you know my opinions on the current MethodUtils API but i don't really think that adding this method will make things worse than they are already. should this be made public? - robert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: